IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0164869.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sympathy for the Devil: Detailing the Effects of Planning-Unit Size, Thematic Resolution of Reef Classes, and Socioeconomic Costs on Spatial Priorities for Marine Conservation

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica Cheok
  • Robert L Pressey
  • Rebecca Weeks
  • Serge Andréfouët
  • James Moloney

Abstract

Spatial data characteristics have the potential to influence various aspects of prioritising biodiversity areas for systematic conservation planning. There has been some exploration of the combined effects of size of planning units and level of classification of physical environments on the pattern and extent of priority areas. However, these data characteristics have yet to be explicitly investigated in terms of their interaction with different socioeconomic cost data during the spatial prioritisation process. We quantify the individual and interacting effects of three factors—planning-unit size, thematic resolution of reef classes, and spatial variability of socioeconomic costs—on spatial priorities for marine conservation, in typical marine planning exercises that use reef classification maps as a proxy for biodiversity. We assess these factors by creating 20 unique prioritisation scenarios involving combinations of different levels of each factor. Because output data from these scenarios are analogous to ecological data, we applied ecological statistics to determine spatial similarities between reserve designs. All three factors influenced prioritisations to different extents, with cost variability having the largest influence, followed by planning-unit size and thematic resolution of reef classes. The effect of thematic resolution on spatial design depended on the variability of cost data used. In terms of incidental representation of conservation objectives derived from finer-resolution data, scenarios prioritised with uniform cost outperformed those prioritised with variable cost. Following our analyses, we make recommendations to help maximise the spatial and cost efficiency and potential effectiveness of future marine conservation plans in similar planning scenarios. We recommend that planners: employ the smallest planning-unit size practical; invest in data at the highest possible resolution; and, when planning across regional extents with the intention of incidentally representing fine-resolution features, prioritise the whole region with uniform costs rather than using coarse-resolution data on variable costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica Cheok & Robert L Pressey & Rebecca Weeks & Serge Andréfouët & James Moloney, 2016. "Sympathy for the Devil: Detailing the Effects of Planning-Unit Size, Thematic Resolution of Reef Classes, and Socioeconomic Costs on Spatial Priorities for Marine Conservation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-25, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164869
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164869
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164869&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0164869?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carissa J Klein & Natalie C Ban & Benjamin S Halpern & Maria Beger & Edward T Game & Hedley S Grantham & Alison Green & Travis J Klein & Stuart Kininmonth & Eric Treml & Kerrie Wilson & Hugh P Possing, 2010. "Prioritizing Land and Sea Conservation Investments to Protect Coral Reefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-8, August.
    2. Ban, Natalie C. & Hansen, Gretchen J.A. & Jones, Michael & Vincent, Amanda C.J., 2009. "Systematic marine conservation planning in data-poor regions: Socioeconomic data is essential," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 794-800, September.
    3. Josie Carwardine & Kerrie A Wilson & Matt Watts & Andres Etter & Carissa J Klein & Hugh P Possingham, 2008. "Avoiding Costly Conservation Mistakes: The Importance of Defining Actions and Costs in Spatial Priority Setting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(7), pages 1-6, July.
    4. C. R. Margules & R. L. Pressey, 2000. "Systematic conservation planning," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 243-253, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Merrill Baker-Médard & Katherine Concannon & Courtney Gantt & Sierra Moen & Easton R. White, 2024. "Socialscape Ecology: Integrating Social Features and Processes into Spatially Explicit Marine Conservation Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Boyd, James & Epanchin-Niell, Rebecca & Siikamaki, Juha, 2012. "Conservation Return on Investment Analysis: A Review of Results, Methods, and New Directions," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-01, Resources for the Future.
    3. Richard R Schneider & Grant Hauer & Dan Farr & W L Adamowicz & Stan Boutin, 2011. "Achieving Conservation when Opportunity Costs Are High: Optimizing Reserve Design in Alberta's Oil Sands Region," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-8, August.
    4. Turner, Rachel A. & Polunin, Nicholas V.C. & Stead, Selina M., 2015. "Mapping inshore fisheries: Comparing observed and perceived distributions of pot fishing activity in Northumberland," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 173-181.
    5. Gordon, Ascelin & Bastin, Lucy & Langford, William T. & Lechner, Alex M. & Bekessy, Sarah A., 2013. "Simulating the value of collaboration in multi-actor conservation planning," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 249(C), pages 19-25.
    6. Cabral, Reniel B. & Mamauag, Samuel S. & Aliño, Porfirio M., 2015. "Designing a marine protected areas network in a data-limited situation," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 64-76.
    7. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    8. Tamara S. Wilson & Benjamin M. Sleeter & Rachel R. Sleeter & Christopher E. Soulard, 2014. "Land-Use Threats and Protected Areas: A Scenario-Based, Landscape Level Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-28, April.
    9. Auriel M. V. Fournier & R. Randy Wilson & Jeffrey S. Gleason & Evan M. Adams & Janell M. Brush & Robert J. Cooper & Stephen J. DeMaso & Melanie J. L. Driscoll & Peter C. Frederick & Patrick G. R. Jodi, 2023. "Structured Decision Making to Prioritize Regional Bird Monitoring Needs," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 207-217, May.
    10. Wang, Haoluan, 2017. "Land Conservation for Open Space: The Impact of Neighbors and the Natural Environment," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258125, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    12. Shirley Saenz & Tomas Walschburger & Juan Carlos González & Jorge León & Bruce McKenney & Joseph Kiesecker, 2013. "A Framework for Implementing and Valuing Biodiversity Offsets in Colombia: A Landscape Scale Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(12), pages 1-27, November.
    13. Iritie, Jean-Jacques, 2015. "Economic Growth, Biodiversity and Conservation Policies in Africa: an Overview," MPRA Paper 62005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Zhouqiao Ren & Wanxin Zhan & Qiaobing Yue & Jianhua He, 2020. "Prioritizing Agricultural Patches for Reforestation to Improve Connectivity of Habitat Conservation Areas: A Guide to Grain-to-Green Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, November.
    15. Kristin Kaschner & Nicola J Quick & Rebecca Jewell & Rob Williams & Catriona M Harris, 2012. "Global Coverage of Cetacean Line-Transect Surveys: Status Quo, Data Gaps and Future Challenges," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-12, September.
    16. Sari, Dwi Amalia & Margules, Chris & Lim, Han She & Widyatmaka, Febrio & Sayer, Jeffrey & Dale, Allan & Macgregor, Colin, 2021. "Evaluating policy coherence: A case study of peatland forests on the Kampar Peninsula landscape, Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    17. Pascal Thoya & Joseph Maina & Christian Möllmann & Kerstin S. Schiele, 2021. "AIS and VMS Ensemble Can Address Data Gaps on Fisheries for Marine Spatial Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-12, March.
    18. Michael A. Wulder & Jeffrey A. Cardille & Joanne C. White & Bronwyn Rayfield, 2018. "Context and Opportunities for Expanding Protected Areas in Canada," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-21, November.
    19. Robert F. Baldwin & Nakisha T. Fouch, 2018. "Understanding the Biodiversity Contributions of Small Protected Areas Presents Many Challenges," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-12, October.
    20. John A. Gallo & Amanda T. Lombard & Richard M. Cowling, 2022. "Conservation Planning for Action: End-User Engagement in the Development and Dual-Centric Weighting of a Spatial Decision Support System," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164869. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.